Connect with us


New film ‘Epidemic of Fraud’ exposes massive COVID corruption


16 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

‘Epidemic of Fraud’ exposes the suppression of hydroxychloroquine, a potential solution to the COVID crisis, orchestrated by government entities including the FDA.

This month sees the release of a new film documenting the COVID regime. What is different about “Epidemic of Fraud” is the scope of corruption it exposes, reaching beyond the prohibition of genuinely safe and effective medicine, to massive financial and political motives to promote lockdowns and the dangerous “vaccines” instead.

John Davidson’s film begins with the scandalous campaign against hydroxychloroquine, a derivative of quinine, the naturally occurring wonder drug whose control has always been a matter of U.S. national security.

“This was the answer. This would have halted the pandemic.” So said Steven Hatfill – COVID adviser to President Donald Trump – in a segment in the film. He noted that “within a week or so, we had 62 million doses” of hydroxychloroquine.

He continued: “52 other countries have used it successfully to keep their pandemic – their hospital admissions under control”

So who decided to halt the Trump administration’s early treatment plan to administer a proven cure? As Davidson shows, “The idea to halt hydroxychloroquine came from the FDA.”

Davidson is far from alone in showing precisely who was responsible.

Dr. Robert Malone – ‘cause unknown’

Davidson, a committed Christian, began as a radio journalist, eventually moving to television and film production. He admits early in the film that he, too, promoted COVID measures, thinking he was providing a public service. It was the restrictions on hydroxychloroquine, he told LifeSiteNews, that “red-pilled” him.

Beginning in 2020, he spent the intervening years in piecing together a story which amounted to a massive fraud conducted on, and at the expense of, the American people.

Rick Bright was demoted from his position as director of BARDA, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, for smearing Trump’s recommendation of hydroxychloroquine as “dangerous.”

As to why the hydroxychloroquine restriction mattered, the truth of the claim against Bright, Malone went on:

Rick Bright in videotaped testimony has explicitly spoken about how they conspired to cook up a strategy to make it so that hydroxychloroquine could only be administered in the hospital – which by the way is too late for when [it] should be used.

Rogan asked Malone the obvious question – why did they do that?

“That is what is the unknown” replied Malone. “There are so many whys and hows – I like to say – there’s a stack of stuff that doesn’t make sense.”

Yet Davidson’s film makes a lot of sense of this seemingly senseless decision. Bright was championed as a heroic “whistleblower” for his leading role in the plan to deprive Americans of a safe and affordable remedy for COVID-19.

Bright’s ambitions are now global. He moved on to work as CEO of the Pandemic Prevention Institute at the Rockefeller Foundation in 2021, celebrating a new World Health Organization “Pandemic Intelligence Centre.” He also spoke at the 2024 World Economic Forum on a panel discussing the role of artificial intelligence in “future cures” and “rebuilding trust in a better tomorrow.”

Bright’s LinkedIn profile reads: “Exponential Transformation of Global Health & Healthcare (Changing the World).” His record leaves no doubt as to the nature of this better world he envisions for us all.

Bureaucrats v. The People

The film shows how Davidson contacted the FDA to submit a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, to see communications between the two major decision makers – Rick Bright and Janet Woodcock.

In a phone call with the Food and Drug Administration, Davidson was told he would have to wait two years to see the data, due to a backlog of 1100 similar requests.

Davidson used his time to investigate the two decision makers whose actions led to a campaign of suppression of hydroxychloroquine that was so successful, that doctors could be ruined if they continued to prescribe it.

“If you use these drugs [in the U.S.] you probably will be fired” said one doctor, as the film documented how doctors in Australia’s Queensland faced imprisonment for prescribing “HCQ,” as hydroxychloroquine is known. As Congressman Jim Jordan points out later in the film, “Something has happened to prevent early treatment.”

The film shows Rep. Jordan speaking at a November 2020 hearing, saying these “logjams” have been created by officials to deny Americans and their elected officials access to the truth.

We should have the right to access this without the interference of bureaucrats at the FDA and CDC.

I can’t get it. Millions of Americans can’t get it because of the logjam created by bureaucrats.

Sen. Ron Johnson was accused the next month of “elevating fringe theories” to “question virus science” by the New York Times, who nonetheless quoted him as saying, “There’s a blackout on good information in social media and media. So people are being denied information to make intelligent choices themselves.”

This blackout was spearheaded by Dr. Antony Fauci, who said at the time that there was a “distinct anti-science flavor” to those questioning his promotion of “vaccines,” lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. Fauci said he effectively was “the science,” and the media played along.

“[T]hey get up and criticize science… but if they criticize me they are criticizing science – cause I represent science,” Fauci had stated.

It became “anti-science” to question anything about this epidemic of fraud. It also became nigh impossible to get any answers. Asking why led Davidson to a darker dimension which had a bearing on another widely censored subject – the 2020 presidential election.

Political pressure

Davidson points out that if the COVID pandemic continued, then the use of mail-in ballots in the presidential election would be permitted under lockdown conditions.

Secondly, he says there was considerable pressure to deprive Donald Trump of a “win,” with a coordinated media campaign caricaturizing the president as insane for recommending hydroxychloroquine. He was linked to the death of a man who drank fish tank cleaner, as the promotion of the “100% safe and effective” mRNA injections began to intensify.

With people locked indoors before their screens, this was the message many received about Trump, and the centuries-old remedy he had endorsed – months before they would vote for their new president.

Canada’s CBC published a news alert on their X (formerly Twitter) account in March 2020, reading, “Arizona man dead, woman in critical condition after ingesting chemical touted by U.S. President Donald Trump as potential COVID-19 treatment. ‘Don’t believe anything that the president says,’ woman tells NBC. ‘Call your doctor.’”

As Davidson shows, the information war against Trump and the proven safety of hydroxychloroquine was undertaken amid enormous pressures, both political and financial. If Trump won again, would he return to promoting a $20 per dose drug, against the novel “vaccines” and the deadly Remdesivir, which was $3000 per treatment? Davidson asks his audience:

With 11 trillion dollars on the line, and the risk of Trump being right – could you have said hydroxychloroquine works?

If Davidson’s cost estimate sounds fantastical, consider that in 2020 Harvard University estimated that the cost to the U.S. from COVID-19 might run to $16 trillion.

This appraisal was revisited in a study in May 2023. Undertaken by the University of Southern California, it showed that by the end of 2023, the total cost of the pandemic to the U.S. would already amount to $14 trillion.

Consider now that these costs, most of which arose from lockdown restrictions, could have been avoided. Now factor in the many vaccine injured and those who have “died suddenly,” along with care home deaths, ventilator deaths, and other iatrogenic fatalities arising from the use of drugs such as midazolam. This is where following the science has led us.

An out-of-patent medicine, cheaply available and known to be safe for centuries could have stopped it all.

John Wilkes Booth and quinine

The film covers the remarkable history of the naturally occurring antimalarial compound quinine, including the fascinating detail that John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s would-be assassin, had been “smuggling quinine to desperate families” across the rebel South. Lincoln had aimed to “create as many sick and dead Southern soldiers as possible” by blockading the distribution of quinine.

Davidson shows Lincoln’s northern blockade was just one example of the military dimension to the deliberate restriction of access to quinine, of which hydroxychloroquine is a modern derivative.

It is this which gives tonic water its distinctive tang, and for this reason the gin and tonic was widely consumed by the British in the tropics. Quinine has long been safe and effective in treating a variety of sicknesses, and is so vital that its stockpiling was ordered again by the U.S. government in 1946 – as Davidson shows. The military significance of the drug which could have saved America has a long heritage. Its restriction was described by Davidson as an arguable case of “biological warfare.” This is one further disturbing dimension to the true pandemic which blighted nations under Fauci’s lockdowns.

Epidemic fraud

The message of Davidson’s film is that something is seriously wrong with our world. This wrong is not restricted to the media, whose smear campaigns “gaslit” the public into compliance, leading them to take novel treatments whose manufacturers were indemnified from liability.

It extends beyond the intimidation of doctors and the reputational ruin those brave enough to speak out have suffered. Davidson’s film, a remarkable cinematic achievement for a man who made it largely alone in his garage, is a document which will embolden anyone who sees it against the corruption that has replaced public service at the highest levels.

The film can be understood as an insight into one of the most dedicated and successful acts of self-harm that a nation has ever undertaken. The United States government, its health officials, its captive media, and its trusted public health officials have destroyed public trust along with risking the health, lives, and livelihoods of millions of its citizens.

Davidson’s film deserves the widest possible audience, as it speaks beyond partisan antagonisms to reveal a systematic betrayal of the American public, coordinated through the channels of guidance and information that Americans expected to serve them – and not the powerful political and financial interests he exposes here.

The sickness he documents is not a lab-created virus. It is the capture of the free world by dark forces whose hunger for power and for profit will see them poison their own well.

Speaking to Davidson in an interview, LifeSiteNews asked what he thought the future might hold, as public awareness of the magnitude of the epidemic of fraud around COVID grows. His answer was inspirational.

People are coming together over this. I have met lawyers fighting for the vaccine-injured, brave doctors speaking out, and there is a real movement growing.

He finished with a striking image.

I think about David and Goliath a lot.

My film is like the stone that David fired from his sling. I have released the stone. It is up to God now where it finds its mark.

You can watch “Epidemic of Fraud” by completing an email registration on Davidson’s site “Broken Truth.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author


Malaysian doctor goes viral after apologizing for administering COVID shots

Published on

Dr. Syafiq Nordin

From LifeSiteNews

By Angeline Tan

Dr. Syafiq Nordin asked for forgiveness if he misguided anyone.

On April 17, a restorative doctor from Malaysia posted what seemed to be a sincere apology for administering the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines” to patients.

In a Facebook post, Dr. Syafiq Nordin said (English translation below from his native Malay):


1. New revelations about Pfizer have revealed a weakness in the industry, of which I am part of.

2. I am saddened as, before meeting Dr. Razin Jaafar, the medical advice I gave contained many mistakes, particularly with regard to COVID.

3. However, I am very grateful to him because I am now more open-eyed and more enlightened about health sciences, which honestly are more natural and fitting to my soul as a medical practitioner and as a Muslim.

4. During the past COVID times, it is undeniable that it was difficult for health care workers who strove to provide the best health services, and even more difficult for the rest of the citizens facing the Movement Control Order (MCO) lockdown.

5. The administration of the vaccine at that time was seen as the best way, and the mass vaccination program was launched very rapidly.

6. I was also involved, in my capacity, in giving medical advice and obtaining “consent” so that the vaccine could be administered.

7. I, as a medical practitioner, also took 3 Pfizer vaccines.

8. Everything happened in a “touch & go” manner, it was impossible for me to identify whom I had given medical advice pertaining to this matter.

9. With this, I would like to apologize a thousand times for the mistakes I had made in the previous years, particularly to those who came to me during the mass COVID-vaccination season.

10. Honestly, I am unable to assist anyone financially should complications happen.

11. Nonetheless, I will try my best to provide more holistic medical advice in line with the Restorative sciences brought by Dr. Razin.

I apologize, Malaysian Citizens!”

Dr. Nordin’s post went viral, receiving 2,800 likes, 1,500 comments and 4,300 shares at the time of reporting.

One comment by Mohammed Shazni read:

“Congratulations doctor because doctor is man enough to admit his mistakes and apologize. Hopefully the others will also get rid of their ego and make a massive apology, including all ‘religious people’ yeah.”

Another comment by Biskut Jagung said:

“Thank you Doctor for the recognition And the doctor’s honesty. I was able to take mom to get her post v treatment with Doctor Razin because the vax has changed my mom’s life 360 degrees.”

Mohamad Shafiq wrote:

“The best doc.. I salute the doctor for his bravery to admit it. not an easy thing. May more medical practitioners come forward and raise awareness to the people.”

Top fan Raja Intan Ris also penned:

“Sad but thanks for the open apology Dr Syafiq Nordin. Hopefully more doctors who already know about the badness of V will appear to correct the condition”

With his apology, Dr. Nordin joins the ranks of people all over the world, including mRNA pioneer Dr. Robert Malone, U.S. journalist Megyn Kelly, and former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo who have changed their minds regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots.

In 2021, amid the COVID-19 “vaccination” craze worldwide, Malaysia launched the National COVID-19 Immunization Programme (NIP), known as “Program Imunisasi COVID-19 Kebangsaan” in Malay. At that time, Malaysia set a target of inoculating at least 80% of its population by February 2022, according to Reuters reports.

“Sorry to say, we will make life very difficult for you if you’re not vaccinated by choice.”

“If you choose not to vaccinate, then we will probably ask you to do regular tests that you have to pay for,” he added.

“Although Malaysia is unlikely to mandate vaccination at the national level, it is seriously looking at sectoral mandates.”

In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on February 16, 2022, Khairy attempted to debunk claims that his son was injected with air rather than the COVID-19 “vaccine”:

“Don’t disturb others who want their children vaccinated,” he posted.

Earlier, Khairy had shared a video of six-year-old son Raif getting “vaccinated,” but some social media commenters retorted that the video was just “for show” and that his son had not actually received a COVID-19 shot.

Malaysia, a Southeast Asian country, has seen its fair share of those resistant to the COVID-19 shots. According to a survey by the Ministry of Health Malaysia conducted in December 2020, as reported by establishment media outlet Channel News Asia, 17 percent of those polled said they were unsure of the “vaccine.” Up to 78 percent of those in the uncertain group were not confident that the experimental “vaccines” would be effective, and 71 percent thought they would be unsafe for use.

In 2023, The New Straits Times reported that Khairy was one of several defendants, along with “vaccine” makers Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Pharmaniaga, in domestic lawsuits over side effects from the COVID-19 “vaccine.”

The plaintiffs demanded that the defendants like Khairy be held culpable for the side effects of the “vaccines,” including severe complications causing “death, permanent disability, and other complications resulting in losses.

Besides Malaysia, neighboring Singapore was not spared from various rounds of draconian COVID-19 lockdowns and experimental “vaccination” campaigns either, with the Singapore government coming down harshly on “vaccine” resistance. Religious houses of worship, including Catholic churches, had to implement government-mandated “vaccination-differentiated safe management measures” (VDS) in 2022.

Based on Singapore’s VDS measures, only those considered by the government as “fully vaccinated” or who were “medically ineligible for Covid-19 vaccines or have recovered from the disease as well as children aged 12 and below,” could attend in-person worship services and Catholic Masses. No religious exemptions were granted to those who expressed doubts about receiving the abortion-tainted “vaccines.”

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

Enough With These Dangerous Calculations

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Jeffrey A. TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER 

Now that there is more open talk about vaccine injury, we are continually assured that overall these vaccines were worth it even so. The thought always occurs: it has not been worth it for the injured. Nor is their injury lessened by the knowledge that others were helped, if they were.

What precise metric are we going to use to determine costs and benefits population-wide? Many millions were forced to take experimental injections that they did not want nor need. Many were injured and with no chance of compensation. This is gravely unjust. You don’t need to take recourse to fancy philosophical conjectures (The Trolley Problem, The Lifeboat Dilemma, The Fat Man on the Bridge, etc.) to do the utilitarian calculation.

And yet, such calculations are precisely what the defenders of society-wide pandemic interventions are citing as evidence that we can and should do it again. The costs are high, they now admit, but worth the benefit.

Well, maybe not. It’s hard to say but they will keep working on it. They will decide in due course.

This is the argument of Professor John M. Barry. His book on the 1918 flu pandemic kicked off the entire pandemic-planning industry once George W. Bush read the book flap in 2005. Barry’s new article in the New York Times raises alarms about the Avian Bird Flu, the same as the whole pandemic industry is doing right now, and makes the argument that the interventions last time were just great overall.

“Australia, Germany and Switzerland are among the countries that demonstrated those interventions can succeed,” he claims even though all three countries have been torn apart by the pandemic response that is still rocking politics and showing itself in economic decline “Even the experience of the United States provides overwhelming, if indirect, evidence of the success of those public health measures.”

What is that indirect evidence? This you won’t believe: that flu deaths dramatically fell. “The public health steps taken to slow Covid contributed significantly to this decline, and those same measures no doubt affected Covid as well.”

That’s a heck of a thing. If you burn down the house to kill the rats and fail, but happen to kill the pets, surely you have some bragging rights there.

There is indeed a big debate on why seasonal flu seems to have nearly disappeared during the pandemic. One theory is simple misclassification, that flu was just as present as always but labeled Covid because PCR tests pick up even slight elements of the pathogen and financial incentives drove one to displace the other. There is surely an element of this.

Another theory relates to crowding out: the more serious virus pushes aside the less serious one, which is an empirically testable hypothesis.

A third explanation might in fact be related to interventions. With vast numbers staying home and the banning of gatherings, there was indeed less opportunity for pathogenic spread. Even if granting that is true, the effect is far from perfect, as we know from the failure of every attempt to achieve zero Covid. Antarctica is a good example of that.

That said, and even postulating this might be correct, there is nothing to prevent the spread among the population after opening except with even worse results because immune systems are degraded for lack of exposure.

Barry concedes the point but says “such interventions can achieve two important goals.” The first is “preventing hospitals from being overrun. Achieving this outcome could require a cycle of imposing, lifting and reimposing public health measures to slow the spread of the virus. But the public should accept that because the goal is understandable, narrow and well defined.”

Fine, but there is a major glaring error. Most hospitals in the US were not overrun. There is even a genuine question about whether and to what extent New York City hospitals were overrun but, even if they were, this had nothing to do with hospitals in most of the country. And yet the grand central plan closed them all for diagnostics and elective surgeries. In major parts of the country, parking lots were completely empty and nurses were furloughed in more than 300 hospitals.

Overall, that scheme (and who imposed this?) didn’t work too well.

The second supposed benefit you can predict: shutting down buys time “for identifying, manufacturing and distributing therapeutics and vaccines and for clinicians to learn how to manage care with the resources at hand.” This is another strange statement because authorities actually removed therapeutics from the shelves all over the country even though physicians were prescribing them.

As for the supposed vaccine, it did not stop infection or transmission.

So that scheme didn’t work either. There is also something truly cruel about using compulsory methods to preserve the population’s immunological naïveté in anticipation of a vaccine that may or may not work and may or may not cause more harm than good. And yet that is precisely the plan.

The most alarming part of Barry’s article, even aside from his incorrect claim that masks work, is this statement: “So the question isn’t whether those measures work. They do. It’s whether their benefits outweigh their social and economic costs. This will be a continuing calculation.”

Again we are back to benefit vs costs. It’s one thing for a person confronting a true moral or personal difficulty to make that calculation and live with the consequences. Every philosophical problem listed above – Trolly Cars and Lifeboats – involves personal choices and single decision-makers. In the case of pandemic planning and response, we are talking about groups of intellectuals and bureaucrats making decisions for the whole of society. In the last go-round, they made these decisions for the entire world with catastrophic results.

Many hundreds of years ago and following, the Western mind decided that giving such power to elites was not a good idea. The “continuing calculation” about what costs and benefits are experienced by billions of people from compulsory impositions is not something we should risk, not even with AI (which Barry says will solve the problems next time). Instead, we generally decided that a presumption of freedom is a better idea than empowering a small elite of scientists with the power to make “continuing calculations” for our supposed benefit.

Among many problems with the scientistic scheme for elite rule in the realm of infectious disease is that the population as a whole has no way to evaluate schemes and claims made to them by the government itself. They told us terrible population-wide death would come from Covid but it turned out to be exactly what others said back in February 2020; a disease impactful mainly on the aged and infirm.

Similarly, with the bird flu, we’ve been through a quarter century of claims that half of humanity could die from it. So far, every jump from animals to humans has resulted in reparable maladies like conjunctivitis.

But let’s say the bird flu really does get bad. Should the scientists who ruled us last time be trusted to do it again? That’s Barry’s plea: he demands “trust in government.” At the same time, he wants government to have the power to censor dissent. He falsely claims that last time, “there was no organized effort to counter social media disinformation” despite vast evidence of exactly this.

More information is actually what we need, especially from dissidents. For example, Barry celebrates that dexamethasone worked against Covid. But he fails to point out that the “experts” said in February 2020 that dexamethasone should not be used. Indeed, if you followed the Lancet, you would not have used them at all. In other words, Barry’s article refutes itself simply by showing the experts were desperately wrong in this case.

And, honestly, he knows this. Every bit of it. I have no doubt that if we met for cocktails, he would agree with most of this article. But he would also quickly point out that, after all, the New York Times commissioned the article so he can only say so much. He is merely being strategic, don’t you know?

This is the problem we face today with nearly all ruling-class intellectuals. We don’t actually disagree that much on the facts. We disagree on how much of the facts we are in a position to admit. And this puts Brownstone in a very awkward position of being a venue to say publicly what most people in the know say only privately. We do it because we believe in doing so.

All of which underscores the more general point: government and its connected scientists simply cannot be trusted with this kind of power. The last experience illustrates why. We forged our societies to have laws and guaranteed liberties that can never be taken away, not even during a pandemic. It is never worth using the power of the state to ruin lives to fulfill anyone’s abstract vision of what constitutes the greater good.


  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading